|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are Atheists "Philosophically Limited"....? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
AZPaul3 writes:
So, yes, I am guilty ... of nothing. Hmmmm.... never in my wildest dreams would have thought that we would be experiencing the second coming right here at EvC.
AZPaul3 writes: Nothing wrong in studying to build an H-bomb. The effort led directly to a greater understanding of particle physics, the Stanford Linear Accelerator and FermiLab, and to the full theory of Stellar Nucleogenesis. What the politicians (christians all, btw) chose to do with that knowledge was not a science decision. I'm just saying that enlightenment has had both its upsides and downsides.
AZPaul3 writes: One could see things this way if one ignores the reaching effects of science on society. I see the situation as a humanist enlightenment borne of the acknowledgement that the human condition is universal. We are all the same species with all the same pains, needs and desires as shown to us by the sciences of Evolution, Medicine, Psychology.
I think that the evolution of mankind into what is overall a kinder gentler species is only partly due to science, but even at that I would contend that the emphasis that science puts on things like curing diseases is a part of that spiritual evolution. We are gradually evolving into societies that are less self absorbed. It is an uneven evolution with a long way to go, but I contend that we are making progress. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
I got up this morning to find that I had 7 friends wanting to correspond. I had no idea I was so popular. I feel like Sally Field at the Oscars. I can't keep up with the replies that I'm getting so I'll do the best I can just responding here. One of these days I am going to learn to read the additional messages in a thread before I respond. I see where others are addressing your points quite well. I'll not pile it up. [Lurk Mode = On]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
What I did was respond to you as you were the one that I was corresponding with, and I also replied to Straggler as he opened the thread.
I think my responses covered the other posts to some degree anyway. These discussions are good for the mind or our random collection of atoms. (Take your pick. ) Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Correct me if I am wrong - But your entire argument seems to be based on rejecting the requirement that to qualify as a form of evidence something should demonstrably and reliably lead to conclusions that are more reliable than blind random chance. Is this the case? If so what are you suggesting instead? Is "evidence" simply whatever one chooses to base ones beliefs upon? Is "evidence" nothing more than personal conviction?
GDR writes: There is no demonstrably reliable form of evidence to tell us what is beautiful. This is like comparing the question "What is art?" with "What is real?" Unless you are going down the solipsistic rabbit hole of claiming that "We are brains in a jar. Everything is entirely subjective. Nothing is real" - I fail to see why you think the comparison is valid.
GDR writes: That suggests to me that reason is something external to our physical world. The fact that your ability to reason seems to be wholly dependent on your physical brain functioning correctly suggests otherwise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
All attempts at modelling human intelligence require input and if the input is the same we will get the same result. Two people can look at the same thing and one will think it is beautiful and one won't. Same input but different results. Our models of human intelligence don't produce subjective results. Without going too in-depth into neurobiology, I highly doubt that the inputs could ever be the same. Your emotional state from one moment to the next is not the same, and that is one of the inputs.
Football rules are standard and have to be transmitted one way or another. It was human reason that are at the root of the rules in the first place and it was subjective reasoning that devised the rules. (The rules didn't have to be what they are.) As we have been discussing in this thread, there are many schools of Reason, each having their own rules (i.e. epistemology). It is no different than football, IMHO.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3805 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
Are you not the author of this statement? ->
And once again, if we are just a combination of atoms and molecules organized by random chance there is still no reason to have any confidence in anything that comes from the study of other random collections of matter. You seemed to be suggesting that our ability to understand through the scientific method is flawed from the get-go, and you appeared to me to be using a caricuture of the Theory of Evolution as an example of this supposed fundemental flaw.
Of course not, but it seems to me that science starts off with human reasoning and then the work begins to either support or reject the reasoning experimantally. It still all starts with reason. Of course it starts with reasoning? Yet, we have reasoned that testing hypotheses to determine their validity is a good way to determine the strength of the argument put forth. That doesn't mean we test our hypotheses by determining which one "sounds like a good argument". We attempt to test them by looking for experiments which might possibly falsify them. You seem to be suggesting that 'reasoning' (as you put it) lays outside the human brain, that it is some metaphysical power or object.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: Correct me if I am wrong - But your entire argument seems to be based on rejecting the requirement that to qualify as a form of evidence something should demonstrably and reliably lead to conclusions that are more reliable than blind random chance. Is this the case? If so what are you suggesting instead? Is "evidence" simply whatever one chooses to base ones beliefs upon? Is "evidence" nothing more than personal conviction? Not really. It just appears to me that if blind random chance is all that there is then I don't see any basis for us to have any confidence in our own reasoning. We can probably agree on what constitutes empirical evidence but there is evidence that is subjective, and you are likely right in the sense that most world views are based on subjective evidence or personal conviction if you like.
Straggler writes: This is like comparing the question "What is art?" with "What is real?" Unless you are going down the solipsistic rabbit hole of claiming that "We are brains in a jar. Everything is entirely subjective. Nothing is real" - I fail to see why you think the comparison is valid. OK, but it seems to me that if reasoning only comes from a strictly material world then we would all agree on what is beautiful.
Straggler writes: The fact that your ability to reason seems to be wholly dependent on your physical brain functioning correctly suggests otherwise. I don't disagree that the brain is necessary to the thought process. The question really is, does philosophical reason have anything to add to what we can learn through the scientific method. I contend that it does and if an atheist or anyone else for that matter claims it doesn't, then it seems to me that they are philosophically limited. Of course that all depends on my being correct in believing that we can learn things philosophically that we can't learn scientifically. If I am wrong in that the whole question is moot. (Which of course would beg the question of why you brought this up in the OP in the first place.) Are there no philosophers on this board to give me a hand here? Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
DBlevins writes: You seemed to be suggesting that our ability to understand through the scientific method is flawed from the get-go, and you appeared to me to be using a caricuture of the Theory of Evolution as an example of this supposed fundemental flaw. Not at all. One of the reasons that I have confidence in the scientific method is that I believe that there is reason and intelligence undergirding our existence. I don't like to comment that much on the ToE because frankly I don't have enough knowledge about it to have an opinion of my own based on my own knowledge. I'm prepared to accept it as accurate based on the opinion of those who do have that kind of knowledge including many on this forum. The ToE has no bearing on either my philosophical or religious beliefs. I'd call myself a theistic evolutionist but frankly that gives me too much credit. I'm a theist who has no problem in accepting the ToE.
DBlevins writes: Of course it starts with reasoning? Yet, we have reasoned that testing hypotheses to determine their validity is a good way to determine the strength of the argument put forth. That doesn't mean we test our hypotheses by determining which one "sounds like a good argument". We attempt to test them by looking for experiments which might possibly falsify them. But not all reasoning can be tested. How can you test reasoning that is subjective?
DBlevins writes: You seem to be suggesting that 'reasoning' (as you put it) lays outside the human brain, that it is some metaphysical power or object. I can certainly see why you would come to that conclusion. I wish I had a clear cut answer to give you. I'll go back to the computer. Our computers can only come up with information because it has been, or is being, subject to an external intelligence whether it be the programmer, the designer or the operator. Our brain is physical just as the computer is physical and we can observe the impulses in the brain as it undergoes various thought processes. It seems to me that there must be something more. We make decisions that aren't necessarily consistent or rational. We have original ideas. I suppose I am suggesting a metaphysical component which I would call the mind as I can't come up with a better answer. All I'm saying is that I believe there is more going on in our thought processes than the physical activity we can see in the brain. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
As my explanatory skills are lacking I'll post thise excerpt from C S Lewis' "God in the Dock". Maybe it will help clarify things. I remain hopeful as always.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: But nobody believes that. You'd have to be a hard core creationist to even to think that anyone believes that.
quote: Only if we were all identical. And materialism gives us no reason to expect that whatsoever.
quote: Of course philosophy can say some things - but whether they are things that cause any problem to atheists is another matter. Philosophy has not managed to prove - or even come up with solid arguments - that there is a God, for instance. And look at you. I've quoted two badly wrong statements from you in this very post. Isn't it at least possible that theists are even more limited by an excessive regard for their own opinions ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Thanks for providing yet another example of a philosophically limited theist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes: But nobody believes that. You'd have to be a hard core creationist to even to think that anyone believes that. I believe it and I'm not a creationist hard core or otherwise. Here is an article by John Lennox: John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science, has written an excellent article explaining why Stephen Hawking has it wrong: you can’t explain the universe without God. Here is the article in full:
quote: Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines inside quote box. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: If "blind chance" is the only alternative to creation that you will allow then clearly you ARE a hard core creationist. Clearly such a view must be based on a complete rejection of evolution or a serious failure to understand it. Lennox does not refer to "blind chance" but only an "unguided process" which - if you understand that it means an absence of intelligent or goal-directed guidance is at least accurate. But of course, natural selection is a form of guidance, so the qualifications are important. And if I had more time I would point to the bad arguments produced by Lennox, which once again cut against any idea that "philosophical limits" are in any way something that should be especially attached to atheists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes: If "blind chance" is the only alternative to creation that you will allow then clearly you ARE a hard core creationist. Clearly such a view must be based on a complete rejection of evolution or a serious failure to understand it. I have no problem as I have stated numerous times with the idea that God created using an evolutionary process. I am of the view that God created but I'm open to ideas as to what the process was.
PaulK writes: Lennox does not refer to "blind chance" but only an "unguided process" which - if you understand that it means an absence of intelligent or goal-directed guidance is at least accurate. But of course, natural selection is a form of guidance, so the qualifications are important. I agree that natural selection is a form of guidance but it would also fit under the heading of physical laws which Lennox deals with in that quote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Except that you don't allow evolution as an alternative to creation, only blind chance. If you cannot accept that evolution even occurs, how can you be open to the possibility ?
quote: If you accept natural selection then you must reject the notion that blind chance is the only alternative to creation. If you even accept that OTHER PEOPLE believe that natural selection is right you must accept that your use of "blind chance" is nothing more than a strawman. And I must point out that natural selection, in itself, is an inevitable consequence of a varied population of replicators competing for resources to fuel replication. No Gods required.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024